I think that your idea of what constitutes a 'fact' probably varies significantly to what mine is.

I have, in the past, looked into 'facts' about the following: moon landings, 9/11, hollow earth theories, perpetual motion machines, the Illuminati, David Icke, Erik von Daniken, acupuncture and most alternative health practices, the anti-global warming movement, JFK assassination, body language and other pseudosciences, spiritualism and psychic mediumship. Is it worth looking at this new (sic) collection of 'facts', based on past experience? Well, I guess this time, this one time, there could be some astounding new piece of evidence. I could spend spend a couple of hours researching it. But then again...

The thing I was getting at was the fact that when you have something like the northwood papers at your disposal, a plan created by the US government to bomb themselves in an attempt to start the war, its undeniable.

The theory part comes in when you start to talk about how they could have assassinated JFK afterwards for denying this, which of coarse I have no proof on, but again, even though the JFK assassination would still be seen as a conspiracy theory, there's the physical impossibilities of the timing in which Oswald supposedly fired the shots, seen as the rifle couldn't reload that fast, the fact that when Jessie Ventura, a navy seal and expert marksman tried to reenact it, he failed on every attempt, and his target was stood still.

I'm not suggesting any of these theories to be fact, because ultimately, we don't know.
However.
When there are physical impossibilities within the official stories that don't add up, questions have to be asked.

And thats no theory, no idea, just facts. Things that are impossible, out of place.

So with that said, I can't understand how people can categorically say, "thats bull"

Facts don't lie right?

I don't like to belive in conspiracy theories, however, when solid facts come into the equation, you can do nothing but question the offitial story.

When its been proved that they're lying, time and time again with this stuff, how can we believe anything they say?

Quote:

I can offer an opinion on your views for this reason: although these notions are relatively new to you, I promise you that they have been doing the rounds for many years. They are variations on a theme.

I understand that, but I only see this hold true with conspiracy theories, not where there's physical proof involved.